The Serpent's Egg

The title, The Serpent's Egg, had me wondering for a moment until I realized that it did not refer to the the Doctor and his bizarre experiments nor to Abel and his misery, but to the encapsulated Germany of the 1920s and the environment that led to Hitler's ascent in the 1930s. That is, Germany being the 'egg', Hitler and the Nazis as the 'Serpent', and the environment as the embryo of the egg. In many ways, this is a cynical film, in that it attempts to show that degradation, fear and loss of life and livelihood is sometimes stronger than humanity and even love. Isn't this true about Germany in the 1920s, and other nations at other times as well? We only have to look at ourselves after the attacks of 9/11 to see a time when fear overcame reason. Fear allowed us to meekly accept the chipping away of our own civil rights and privacy, and also government sponsored torture. It also gives us a glimpse at one of Hitler's truisms, which is that if he could have a person at age 7, then that person would be a Nazi for life. The experimenting Doctor re-states this in his observations that the sons and daughters of the defeated German populace will be the ones who create the new German society, of which he already is a part with his inhumane human experiments. Of course, all this is done with hindsight, so how can it be wrong? It can't, but then it's still a good review of a period in Germany that many Americans know nothing about, and should learn if they want the answers to the question of how Naziism came to be. It wasn't just some sort of aberration never seen in history before nor repeated.

source: The Serpent's Egg

The Serpent's Egg

This movie is quite different from other Ingmar Bergman films for many reasons. First, it stars David Carradine--an actor very unlike the stock company actors and actresses Bergman usually uses. Second, instead of focusing on mental illness or death, it is a German Existential film about manipulation and murder. Third, because it is SO different, it will probably alienate many die-hard Bergman fans. What did I think of it?! Well, based on the score of 3 (and that MIGHT have been a little generous), it wasn't a film I particularly liked. It seemed very cruel, bloody and violent compared to other Bergman films. Also, I have never been a fan of David Carradine, but he REALLY looked out of place here.

Ingmar Bergman, one of the greatest film directors, one of the most prominent art craftsmen to tell a story through images, dialogue and narrative. Many absolute masterpieces under his belt, most not easily digested and understood. This "The Serpent's Egg" it's no exception. It's not one of those metaphor films, but it has many harsh scenes. Liv Ullmann is exceptional in the role of Manuela Rosenberg. Exceptional is Heinz Bennent as Hans Vergerus. Gert Fröbe also excels in what he can do best, police inspector, as in so many other movies (see Mabuse series). And David Carradine is also credible and efficient in the role of the Jew Abel Rosenberg. The film has great atmosphere and super cabaret scenes with specific music from the Nazi rise era in Germany. It's not Bergman's best film but it's worth seeing.

The film is interesting, of course -it tells about the rise of Nazi power. But this is the less "bergmanian" film of Ingmar Bergman. It's not an intimate portrait of people -as the Swedish director always does. Here we have a big budget movie, with many actors... Although the presence of Liv Ullmann, Bergman loses his targets. On one side he wants to analyze a period, on the other one he has to follow more mainstream rules -because he works for a big budget production. As a result he "fails" (it's a big word) in both things -although the film is not a failure. We feel Ingmar Bergman is not really at ease. This is not his natural dimension -he's a super director because he has an extraordinary ability of understanding neurosis and anxieties, his favorite context are the relationships among a few people. In "The Serpent's Egg" these trademark are really minor.

From what I've read, "The Serpent's Egg" is considered Ingmar Bergman's worst movie. Watching it, I didn't find it terrible. I guess that I haven't seen enough of Bergman's movies to fully judge (I've only seen "The Seventh Seal" and "Autumn Sonata"). It had the feeling of a 1920s expressionist film. I guess that the movie was a metaphor for the rise of Nazism: people slowly realized that something terrible was rising but felt helpless to stop it. The cabaret scenes are neat. I did find the ending abrupt, though. As he often did, Bergman cast Liv Ullmann. The surprising cast members here are David Carradine (Bill in "Kill Bill") and Gert Fröbe (the title role in "Goldfinger"); also appearing is James Whitmore (a noted actor for many years, he appeared in the Miracle Gro commercials towards the end of his life). So, it's not a masterpiece, but nothing terrible.

I know "The Serpent's Egg" is considered one of Bergman's weakest films, but I found it to be an atmospheric, immersive portrait of the dreary, hopeless post-WWI Berlin ("Go to hell!" - "Where do you think we are?"), as well as a moving story of two lost souls whose only companionship in the whole world are each other (Carradine has gotten a lot of flack for this performance, but I thought he was just fine; Liv Ullmann is exceptional). The middle of the movie doesn't seem to go anywhere, and there are perhaps a few too many tacky cabaret numbers, but the climax is riveting, thanks mostly to a magnificent, chilling performance by Heinz Bennent. It's worth the wait, and the whole movie is definitely worth a look. *** out of 4.

It might really be crazy, but seems like this is one of the Bergman movies that actually did not get a high rating here. And it is crazy (for me), because this is one of his movies that I really enjoyed (though that may be a poor choice of word). It really is out there, but still coherent in its storytelling, so that you can follow it, but be amazed by the direction it takes. And while it would be difficult for me to explain its appeal and/or the plot to you (even if I had put spoilers in this, which I'm not going to do!), I can tell you that it is really gripping. Carradine might be one of the reasons for this, but not the only one. I still wouldn't know if I could recommend this to a first time Bergman viewer ... but then again, which of his movies could that be?

While not a masterpiece, this is also far from the mess most critics took it for. An intelligent failure (or modest success) Bergman looks at Germany in the 20s as laying the groundwork for Hitler and the Nazis. Liv Ullman is terrific, as always. And if David Carradine is only good, not great, he certainly didn't deserve the critical attacks he received. The nature of his character is a man so locked in passivity as to be enigmatic. You might not like that kind of character, but it's certainly not the actor's fault for carrying it out well! Yes, some of it is slow, and some a bit obvious, but those charges could also be leveled against some Bergman films labeled masterpieces. As a cautionary tale of where we were once before, and could end up again, I've certainly seen far worse. It has some truly chilling moments. And I think seeing it again may reveal even more